There's a { MERGESEQ } field that you can put into your document that shows
the number of the current record (it gets this right even if you have
filtered the data nad made selections - i.e. if you merge two records, {
MERGESEQ } will be 1, then 2.
However, tha won't be useful if you use { NEXT } fields, { NEXTIF } fields
and so on. If you aren't using those, but you need a sequence such as 1000,
1001 etc. you can use a nested field such as
{ ={ MERGESEQ } + 999 }
Don't be surprised if this field shows a syntax error before you merge - it
should be OK when you merge, but test!
If you do a Letter merge to a new document you could also consider using the
{ SECTION } field, since each "copy" of the Mail Merge Main Document goes
into a new Word section. Not sure off the top off my head if that works when
you output to the printer.
Peter Jamieson
"dante8" <dante8[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B4FD1AE9-3904-49FD-869A-41220759FE73[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > Cheers Peter, most helpful. Unfortunately-and this is my own fault-I was
> in
> such a rush that I didn't actually specify what the problem was.
> What I want to do is print a series of numbered documents without having
> to
> write the individual numbers on them (there are about 8,000...you see my
> issue!)
> Any cunning plans?
>
> "Peter Jamieson" wrote:
>
>> In older versions of Word (2000 and earlier, don't know about Mac
>> versions)
>> you could set up a data source for a MailMerge in two parts: a Header
>> Source, containing a list of the column names in the data source, and a
>> "Data Source", which would contain the actual data.
>>
>> Typically a Header Source would be a .doc file or .txt file with a list
>> of
>> column names separated by commas or tabs and terminated by a carriage
>> return/line feed or Word paragraph mark. The comma or tab is the "field
>> delimiter". The CR/LF is the "record delimiter". At one time things
>> generally seemed to work better if you duplicated the row of names in the
>> header (Word seemed to make a better job of guessing the delimiters).
>>
>> All this was "deprecated" in Word 2002, possibly because most data source
>> these days come with headers of one sort or another. You can still use
>> the
>> approach, but I do't think it works as well as it used to and I wouldn't
>> use
>> it without a very good reason.
>>
>> Or maybe you were asking about something else?
>>
>> Peter Jamieson
>> "dante8" <dante8[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:D7DEFD53-0AE7-4A37-ADF8-B90C076949F7[ at ]microsoft.com...
>> >
>>
>>
|